Talk:Ocean's Three and a Half/Archive 1

Past characters
The children in the lemonade stand scence were from the previous episode "Tale's of a third grade nothing" worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is common in Family Guy. Many background characters show up in later Episodes.  The woman who took Quagmire to the opera in No Chris Left Behind is also in the background of this Episode.  The College girl from Brian Goes Back To College is in the background of many Episodes.  Many Characters which have speaking parts, started out very minor.  Cleveland even had a different voice, as heard in Death Has A Shadow.

Stewie's music video
Does anyone know all or at least some of the music videos being parodied in Stewie's Bryan Adams music video? 207.211.82.6 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the videos were listed in a previous edit, but then were removed. I have no idea why this was done.99.237.62.225 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They need sourcing. Sarujo (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian Bale reference on Family Guy
Sweeeeeeeeet. Will be interesting to see what sort of reception this gets in secondary sources. Appears to be a clip from this episode. Cirt (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

hahahaha, that part was hilarious!!! Carluverdrm2004 (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional mentions of this in Los Angeles Times, Gather News. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Entertainment Weekly mentioned in comments. Cirt (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * News.com.au, The Celebrity Truth, New York Post. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Guardian. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Episode title
Comcast listed the title as "Ocean's 3.5", not "Ocean's Three and a Half". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.64.156 (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when has Comcast become the Family Guy athority? My Dish Network has gotten episode title wrong before. But on this episode it feature the title as Ocean's Three and a Half. Sarujo (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources list the episode title as "Ocean's Three and a Half". Cirt (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Susie's age
Could someone add a full explanation how Susie is already 18? I'm guessing 10 years since Family Guy first premiered in 1999 (when Bonnie was first introduced as being pregnant) but I'm not sure where he's getting the other 8. --Champthom (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be more of an exageration on Quagmire and the writers parts. Like saying "The Simpsons have been on the air forever." or "That guy's girlfriends get younger and younger. Soon he'll be dating sperm". Sarujo (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Quagmire has expressed the desire to have sex with girls under 18 before under the guise of pretending to mishear their age. 66.231.141.34 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with Quagmire being a pervert.TBone777 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Music Video parodies
Here are some

- White Stripes "Fell in Love With a Girl": Lego Stewie

- Police "Wrapped Around Your Finger": Blond Stewie in sunglasses

- "The Wall" (Pink Floyd film) & "Hysteria" by Muse: Stewie destroying the hotel room

- Across the Universe (film): Stewie throwing paint over a canvas

-Fleetwood Mac "Little Lies" Scene of Stewie in the barn walking. Ends with a shot of his gravestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.106.12 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

--70.23.157.208 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Leo11--70.23.157.208 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
Regarding, quotes should be in quotation marks, and not italicized. Cirt (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also see MOS. Cirt (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the revert before the message in my talk page. Quotes may not be in italics all story titles are. So all instances of story title have to be in italics. Sarujo (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So were just going to turn a blind eye to what I have to say? Sarujo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is best not to italicize within quoted text. If by story titles you mean things like books, movies, or other productions that would normally be italicized, generally I defer to the original secondary source - if the phrase was italicized in that secondary source, it could be italicized within the quotation. If not, not. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's why, hmm. And to think I've doing it wrong all this time. Guess I've got some work cutout for me. Sarujo (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

usage: "downright"
".. Carter downright refuses" (?) no: "refuses outright". The word "downright" is regional slang. examples: "Junior's barbecue was downright heavenly." "Foster Brooks was downright hi-larious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisaacs (talk • contribs)
 * ✅. Removed. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph format please
Regarding, let's please avoid bullet-point style formatting in this article. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur. Sarujo (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Way to reply while also simultaneously making a cultural reference. :P Cirt (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Two-sentence long paragraph?
Does it make sense to have a two-sentence long paragraph in the Plot subsection, here? Personally I don't think so. Thoughts from others? Cirt (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For one thing wikipedia isn't supposed to be a recitation of every TV show episode out there. But the plot subsection shouldn't be so short you wouldn't know what the episode is about! --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Addding a linebreak so that there is a two-sentence paragraph doesn't elongate or shorten the plot, it is just poor style to have such a short paragraph. It should be merged back into the prior paragraph. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry I misunderstood. From my experience editing here short paragraphs are generally signs of lazy editing. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no, actually see the diff I cited above in my first post in this subsection. Prior to that, the short paragraph was part of the larger paragraph above it. I think it should be restored to that version. Cirt (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
Please take a moment to read WP:LEAD. Per WP:LEAD: The lead section, lead (sometimes lede), or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's not all that much shorter than the actual plot summary, and the way it's written just doesn't look right. Immblueversion (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It conforms with WP:LEAD, in that it is able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it just seems so overly-detailed. Can't we just sum up the plot of the article in a more concise way, like the official press release only different, and not actually go into the ending? The article is just so short that it seems like putting so much there is like re-writing a quarter of the whole thing, and that's what makes it seem so out of place. Immblueversion 04:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * , I would appreciate it if you would revert this edit you just did . It really is not a summary of the entire article, you removed the entire summary of the Reception section, and the plot context is not sufficient, because it needs to provide context for the Cultural references/Reception summary paragraph in the lede. As you have changed it, the article now does not conform to WP:LEAD. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The article is just so short that it seems like putting so much there is like re-writing a quarter of the whole thing", I agree with that, but it's just a consequence of the article lacking much more notability other than the reviews, not a reason to over look the WP:LEAD guideline. Alastairward (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Left out of Adult Swim
Regarding and, Unfortunately, that is a violation of the WP:NOR policy. We cannot include this unless this was reported in a secondary news/media source that satisfies our policies of reliable sources and verifiability. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * = This is not appropriate, as simply adding a link to http://www.adultswim.com/schedule is not an appropriate secondary WP:RS/WP:V source, not to mention the cite does not back up this assertion. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay now this edit is just purely (yet again) another blatant WP:NOR violation. Cirt (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Added an edit notice: MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Ocean's Three and a Half. Cirt (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I can explain this to you any clearer: I saw it last night.  I can't prove to you that I saw it, and it's not my fault that you're so loyal to Family Guy to watch this Page constantly, but somehow not loyal enough actually to watch the Episode itself.  How the Hell do you expect me to cite what I just saw?TBone777 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as an uninvolved admin... I don't care HOW you cite it, but you gotta cite it in a way that WP will see as a primary source. In the meantime, forget it... it's OR, and it's got to come out.  - Philippe  05:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes we believe you. I know its not in there. Just becasue you know something is true does not mean you can post it without proof. I "know" god is not real but i cannot post that on wikipedia.174.42.207.35 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.42.207.35 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The MediaWiki notice thingy was moved to Template:Editnotices/Ocean's Three and a Half. Cirt (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Lede
Should the the lede section of Ocean's Three and a Half be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article? 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Cirt
 * Applicable guideline: Lead section - Specifically: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.


 * Summary of events: I have put a large amount of work into this article, which included referencing and expanding the lede from its prior version of one-sentence to a stand-alone concise summary of the article. reverted with no edit summary, and cut the lede back down to a length of two-sentences. I restored, also in the process removing some unsourced material inserted in-between by IPs. I explained on the talk page that the lede section of the article should function as a stand-alone concise summary of the entire article, citing WP:LEAD . Unfortunately in his reply comments,  has not been too responsive or specific, saying the way it's written just doesn't look right, and subsequently Can't we just sum up the plot of the article in a more concise way, like the official press release only different, and not actually go into the ending? Unfortunately it seems he does not understand WP:LEAD and that a proper lede section is actually the opposite of his thinking - that is it should describe the beginning, middle and ending of the plot, as well as concisely summarize all of the other subsections of the article. Most recently  again cut down the lede section, with no edit summary, cutting it to a total of four sentences, removing the entire paragraph summary of the Cultural references/Reception portion of the article, and inserting a run-on sentence.

I think at this point the situation would be helped by some input from previously uninvolved contributors that are familiar with WP:LEAD. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I waited a while after this comment was made by a previously uninvolved editor/respondent to the RfC, and restored the longer lede version. Cirt (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After this, by , I left a comment at the user's talk page about this RfC. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I had left a note a few days ago for. At this point I think this RfC can be closed - thoughts? Cirt (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds resolved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection to closure.  Ty  13:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Immblueversion


 * Comment by previously uninvolved editors


 * Ledes should generally be much larger than they are. That's also true in this case.  They should summarize all aspects of the article, including the beginning, middle, and end of the plot summary.  I haven't looked to deep into this, but it sounds like part of the problem might involve putting spoilers into the lede.  Look at Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, if so.  It says the Darth Vader is Luke's father in the lede. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * With no disposition toward this current debate, Vader being Luke's father is not be a spoiler for Return of the Jedi. This plot point is revealed in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, whose lede only alludes to it as a shocking revelation. —Ost (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead should be self-contained and summarise all the significant aspects of the article, so that readers who want a synopsis can read the lead without having to read the main text.  Ty  02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * RFC ran from 19 February - 14 March 2009, with two previously uninvolved editors weighing in. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

List of songs with girls names
I think we should add a list of all the songs that Brian mentions, I'll put them on here so people can work out who they're by and evenually add them. Roseanna, Roxanne (Police), Michelle, Alison, Sarah, Angie, Brandy, Mandy (Barry manilow), Gloria, Cecilia, Maggie May (Rod Stewart), Jessica, Nancy, Barbera, Anne, Billie Jean (Michael Jackson), Layla (Eric Clapton), Lola (The Kinks), Polly, Helena (My Chemical Romance), Jenny from the block (Jennifer Lopez). I make that 21, maybe it should be Barbera-Anne. Sherry, Laura (Scissor Sisters), Wendy, Maria, Peggy Sue (Buddy Holly), Minnie The Mucher. Tracy, Jean, Jane, Mary Anne, Eleanor Rigby (Beatles). Will Bradshaw (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this information mentioned in a secondary source? Cirt (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I got them off the episode, but they're available on IMDB. Will Bradshaw (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately IMDB is not a WP:RS source. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

HAHA it was funny to hear Brian reciting all those songs! Just FYI, The Rolling Stones created "Angie", The Beach Boys did "Barbara Ann", and Toto did "Rosanna". You know where to find others; I don't know all of 'em. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And what makes IMDB so unreliable if it's so high on Google rankings? Is it because it's an "anyone can contribute" site like Wikipedia? I thought IMDB had a fact-checking panel or something like that. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly certain as to what fact-checking IMDB goes through, but it is true that "anyone can contribute", by submitting to the site. Best to rely on better secondary sources like news/media, reviews of the episode itself, etc. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have them linked here: "Rosanna", "Roxanne", "Michelle", "Alison", "Sarah", "Angie", "Mandy", "Brandy", "Gloria", "Cecilia", "Maggie Mae", "Jessica", "Nancy", "Barbara Ann", "Billie Jean", " Layla ", "Lola", "Polly", "Helena", "Jenny From The Block", "Sherry", "Laura", "Wendy", "Maria", "Peggy Sue", "Minnie the Moocher", "Tracy", "Jean", "Mary Ann" and "Eleanor Rigby".

EamonnPKeane (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source to verify this info? Cirt (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The songs have been verified by a few people, we're not going to find a reliable source, it's not a scientific article so surely citation, although preferable isn't essential. The vast majority of information on WP isn't cited, so would have to be deleted. Listing the songs will improve the article as it is a major part of the episode, so I think it should be put in becuase although it is essentially uncitable it is easily verifiable. We could always use the episode as a citation, which I think is a fairly common thing to do. Will Bradshaw (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you'd need a cite to a secondary source satisfying WP:RS and WP:V for that info. Unfortunately, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to explain away poor sourcing. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about WP:IAR? Do you agree that by adding the list of names the article will be improved?  I and others have verified the songs and artists, so that should be enough, by listing rules as to why we can't add the names you are hindering the improvement of the article. Will Bradshaw (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think the article would be improved with all that listed in there. And no, verifying something based on assertions/claims from Wikipedians does not satisfy WP:V. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? It's a major part of the episode and IMO people will look for the episode on WP so that thay can see what all the songs listed were. The fact that we may not be able to satisfy WP:V or WP:RS is irrelavant if it is considered an improvement as it will satisfy WP:IAR. Will Bradshaw (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a major part of the episode. It is mentioned in passing and does not affect the plot one iota. And even if it were, it is not mentioned in any reliable sources, showing it is not that noteworthy at all. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The scene itself takes up 5% of the episode (including beethoven) and is a particularly memorable part of it. Although it does not particularly affect the plot, the Susie/Susie song plot line is the largest plot line in the episode. Will Bradshaw (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, all this stuff you are saying are just assertions w/out being backed up by reliable sources. If put into the article - this would be a violation of the WP:NOR policy. Cirt (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop citing rules and use your common sense (WP:IAR). Ignoring this particular article, if the general concensus (one hasn't been reached here yet) is that adding certain information that is generally believed to be true but cannot be cited to an article will improve the article, should that information be added?  Surely according to WP:IAR it should be.  This seems like a fairly important point to me and as you know Wikipedia more than me do you know where it can be raised for further disscussion, or do you know of any precedent? Will Bradshaw (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In this particular instance I do not think it would be appropriate to claim WP:IAR applied here means we can ignore WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you don't but I do. Again, do you know where it can be raised for further disscussion, or do you know of any precedent? Will Bradshaw (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you look at Talk:Ocean's_Three_and_a_Half on this page, you will see that other administrators share this view regarding WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Fox version" ?
- This is not backed up per sources, and is an WP:NOR violation. Cirt (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Safety Dance
No mention of The Safety Dance? The Safety Dance article links here. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS source please? Cirt (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review
This article had a GA Review, and was successfully passed as a Good Article. See Talk:Ocean's Three and a Half/GA1. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit
Editprotected

Please can someone revert this unexplained blanking of sourced material. Thx. 91.85.160.75 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken Link
The link to the IMDb page for this episode is wrong, the page is actually http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1329674/ but the page is edit-locked. 86.172.54.44 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References
There's an issue with the cultural references. The Christian Bale scene isn't in this episode at all. Either that or it was removed. Either way, that needs to be deleted. -Ganon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.187.207 (talk • contribs)
 * Actually, per WP:RS/WP:V sources, it is. Cirt (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I just watched the episode last night. There was no scene in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.187.207 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that would be original researach. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw the episode too and I didn't see the terminator refrence at all Ultamatecharizard (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, it was there in the initial airing of the episode, and was reported on as such by secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It was just aired here in New Zealand an hour ago. We always air the uncensored episodes. There was no terminator scene in it that I can recall. --Hayden4258 (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/WP:V secondary source on this? Cirt (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to clear this up, it was removed. Here's the source: http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/02/family-guy-and-christian-bale.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.187.207 (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Random blog post by individual viewer not authority on the subject matter = not WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give a source that can be cited anywhere, I'm just trying to end this debate by showing the reason that the scene isn't in the episode anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.187.207 (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a WP:RS source, this information cannot be in the article. Cirt (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not too bright, are you Cirt? I already said it's not for the article but just so people will stop trying to argue about it on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.188.114 (talk • contribs)
 * Please abide by WP:CIVIL. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That answers my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.188.114 (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just watched a downloaded version of this episode and it is in there. Is TMZ a reliable source? http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/15/bale-wants-peter-griffin-off-the-f-king-set/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturnight (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That link is already cited in the article. Cirt (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

UK airdate
No need to mention the UK airdate, we generally only mention the first airdate of the program, which happened to be in the U.S. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The UK airdate should be removed. It is not noteworthy, the only noteworthy date that should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD is the date the episode first aired on television, which in this case was in the U.S. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

List of songs
The list of songs is WP:OR, and not really encyclopedic unless WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources have provided commentary on this particular part of the episode. Cirt (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this have anything to do with Stewie's music video from this episode? I came here to see what all, exactly, his video referenced. Not only was it hilarious but it was a significant part of the episode.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kageskull (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This would also require a WP:RS secondary source. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah
Yeah, we definitely need someone to fork wikipedia - it's one thing to want "an encyclopedia", but what I want is a source of information, MORE than an encyclopedia. ONE source of information, instead of having to troll through all the spew and crud that clog's google's veins these days. IMHO - better than "an encyclopedia". ex: I came here to see if anyone had made an estimate of how much money is in Mr. Pewterschmidt's vault, and if it wasn't here I was going to make one. But clearly that's not something that would be allowed here. So this is NOT a place I want to come to any more. CraigWyllie (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS and WP:V, and especially WP:NOR. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references
Regarding - Let us please only use secondary sources in the Cultural references subsection. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The links also violate WP:COPYLINKS. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry. I only just realised your point. Nobody has stated that those scenes are references, they were my own suppositions. I'll be better in future.-- Editor510  drop us a line, mate  09:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you! Cirt (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reception section
Merged short paragraphs. We should avoid having two-sentence-long paragraphs and other extremely short paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-edited version
= removed this info, as it was cited to unreliable sources. It is also not noteworthy of mention in an encyclopedia article. Please do not add it back unless this can be demonstrated. This would mean that this particular fact has received significant coverage and discussion, from independent reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the cultural reference section isn't relevant. My UK boxset doesn't include the Bale joke and instead contains a different set of jokes altogether. The only reason I found out about the Terminator joke was from reading this article. When I found out about this I rewatched the episode and discovered it had been removed. I then asked on a few forums and was informed that it had been replaced with a different range of jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riksweeney (talk • contribs) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, and this information can be confirmed to secondary sources, already cited. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of wikilinking

 * Regarding edits by :

= please, do not remove this wikilinking from the article. It is helpful and informative information for the reader. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stewie's Music Video
Is there any chance that we could get some links to some of the spoofs made during Stewie's music video to Susie? I know some of them like the reference to the music video to the White Stripes' Fell in Love with a Girl and another by the Police. Can we have a section for it? Or just an additional paragraph in the cultural references section? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.105.224 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd need secondary sources for that. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)